SEPARATION OF POWERS

Meaning of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers entails: first, the division of the powers of the
government into three, which are legislative, executive, and judicial; and second, the
distribution of these powers to the three major branches of the government, which are
the Legislative Department, Executive Department, and the Judicial Department.
Basically, it means that the Legislative Department is generally limited to the enactment
of the law and not to implementation or interpretation of the same; the Executive
Department is generally limited to the implementation of the law and not to the
enactment or interpretation of the same; and the Judicial Department is generally limited
to the interpretation and application of laws in specific cases and not to the making or
implementation of the same.
Purpose of the Doctrine
Prevention of Monopoly of Power. Separation of powers is said to be an attribute of
republicanism, in that, among other reasons, it seeks to prevent monopoly or
concentration of power to one person or group of persons, and thereby forestalls
dictatorship or despotism. Sovereignty resides in the people, and it should remain that
way. Government officials, who are the representatives of the people, must exercise the
powers of their office in the interest of the public. While representational exercise of
power brings out the essence of republicanism, too much concentration of power rips it
apart, as was experienced some administrations.

Separation not Exclusive

Important to understand is the meaning of “separation” not as exclusivity but as
“collaboration.” While each of the Departments exercises its respective power, it does so
in collaboration with the other Departments because in the end they all belong to one
unified government with a common purpose. Appointment, for example, of Members of
the Supreme Court by the President must be upon the recommendation of the Judicial
and Bar Council. In here before the President, who belongs to the executive branch,
appoint a Supreme Court justice, a recommendation must first be given to him by the
JBC, which is an independent body in the judiciary. Another example would be the use
of public funds. In here, the President prepares the budget, on the basis of which the
Congress enacts an appropriations bill which will then be submitted and approved by
the President.

BLENDING OF POWERS

With the intricateness of the operations of government, it is unwise and impracticable to

effect a strict and complete separation of powers. There are instances when certain
powers are to be reposed in more than one department so they may better collaborate
with, and in the process check each other for the sake of a good and efficient
government. Thus, the necessity of blending of powers.

Blending of powers is actually sharing of powers of the different departments of

government whereby one department helps and coordinates with the other in the
exercise of a particular power, function or responsibility.
The following are examples under the 1987 Philippine Constitution where powers are
not confined exclusively within one department but are in fact shared:
1 The President and Congress help one another in the making of laws. Congress
enacts the bill and the President approves it.
2 The President prepares a budget and Congress enacts an appropriation bill
pursuant to that budget.
3 The President enters into a treaty with foreign countries and the Senate ratifies
the same.
4 The Supreme Court may declare a treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law, as unconstitutional, and it has also the power to declare invalid any act
done by the other departments of government.
5 The grant of amnesty by the President is subject to the concurrence of a majority
of all the members of the Congress.

Checks and Balances

From the examples above one can understand the corollary doctrine of “checks and
balances.” Under the doctrine, there is no absolute separation of the three branches of
the government, but to maintain their coequality each department checks the power of
the others. Generally, the departments cannot encroach each others’ power, but
constitutional mechanisms allow each one of them to perform acts that would check the
power of others to prevent monopoly, concentration, and abuse of power. For example,
the Judicial and Bar Council recommends nominees to the President so that the latter
will not capriciously appoint someone whom he can easily convert into a puppet and
thereby become his medium to control the judiciary. In the same way, the disbursement
of public funds cannot depend solely upon the discretion of the President, but must be
based on legislation by the Congress.

CHECKS AND BALANCES

The ends of government are better achieved if the system of checks and balances will
be observed.

Under the system of checks and balances, one department is given certain powers by
which it may definitely restrain the others from exceeding constitutional authority. It may
object or resist any encroachment upon its authority, or it may question, if necessary
any act or acts which unlawfully interferes with its sphere of jurisdiction and authority.
(Suarez, 2005).

The following are illustrations where there are checks and balances:

1 the lawmaking power of the Congress is checked by the President through its
veto power, which in turn maybe overturn by the legislature
2 the Congress may refuse to give its concurrence to an amnesty proclaimed by
the President and the Senate to a treaty he has concluded
3 the President may nullify a conviction in a criminal case by pardoning the
offender
 4 the Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of inferior
courts and even abolish the latter tribunals
5 the Judiciary in general has the power to declare invalid an act done by the
Congress, the President and his subordinates, or the Constitutional
Commissions.

A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION calls upon the duty of the courts to settle actual
controversies wherein there are rights (property or personal rights) involved which are
legally demandable and enforceable. It is one which is proper to be examined or
decided in courts of justice because its determination would not involve an
encroachment upon the legislative or executive power.
A POLITICAL QUESTION is one which under the Constitution “is to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.”  It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the validity or legality, of a
particular measure or a contested act.
Cases involves special civil actions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo
warranto) and a special proceeding (habeas corpus). The Rules of Court provide
for their definition and the manner of their filing.

(a) Certiorari is a special civil action which is filed by a person who is aggrieved by any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that had acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Its purpose is to invalidate a judgment rendered without or in excess of
authority or jurisdiction.

(b) Prohibition is a special civil action filed by a person aggrieved in the proceedings of
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, which proceedings are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. Its purpose is to
stop a tribunal or person from further engaging in proceedings done without or in excess
of authority or jurisdiction.

(c) Mandamus is a special civil action filed by a person aggrieved by any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, who unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, there is no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Its purpose is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty or duty
mandated by law to be performed under certain circumstances.

(d) Quo Warranto is a special civil action instituted by the Philippine Government
against a person, public officer, or association which usurps, unlawfully holds, intrudes
into an office, position, or franchise. Its purpose is to recover an office or position from a
usurper or from an officer, who has forfeited his office, and a franchise from a false
corporation (one without legal personality).

(e) Habeas corpus is a special proceeding the purpose of which is to grant speedy
remedy for the release of a person illegally confined or detained, or for the grant of
rightful custody over a child or person to someone from whom the custody is withheld or
to whom it rightfully belongs.

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority to review decisions of a lower court.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.